Home News Reviews Forums Shop


POLL: Unofficial Presidential Election vote (poll)

General discussion. Come introduce yourself. Talk about whataver you want!

Who is your choice for President of the US?

John Kerry
20
45%
George W. Bush
19
43%
Neither.. both suck!
5
11%
 
Total votes : 44

Re: New Direction

Postby LoneWolf on Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:10 am

MonteLDS wrote:
steelly wrote:Vote for Kerry; this country needs a new direction in both economic and foriegn policy! :roll:

i don't think any president has a lot of power over the economy.

Monte, you nailed this one with a big hammer.

The President has VERY LITTLE POWER OVER THE ECONOMY. Problem is, everyone thinks he does. In a dictatorship, a leader might have power over their own country's local economy to some extent (note how it's beginning to get away from China in current events, though it used to be fully under government control) but the truth is, the economy is based on far too many complex variables to lay it at the foot of the president. A President may be able to weaken it a bit or strengthen it a bit, but he's one cog in a large set of gears that include consumer confidence, media spin, other countries, commodities markets, and I could go on and on. People gave Clinton/Gore far too much good credit over a (largely artificial as it was a dot com bubble) economy, and they're giving Bush a bad rap over a poor economy he only has so much control over. I do agree with one thing that Kerry has said that companies who ship American jobs overseas should not expect huge tax credits from us. Even so, if the benefits outweigh the lost tax credits, the jobs will still leave. That's what happens in a global economy, and we're foolish if we believe the economy is "just a US issue"; rather it's a global one.
Last edited by LoneWolf on Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Intel Q9450 @3.2GHz, Gigabyte GA EP45-UD3P, 4 x 2GB G.Skill @4-4-4-12
Antec P160SW case (modded), Xigmatek 750w PSU
3x 500GB (RAID-5), , OptiArc 7200S, ASUS E818A3T
Creative X-Fi XtremeGamer, Hauppauge HVR-1800, Radeon 4890
Dell 2407WFP
User avatar
LoneWolf
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:41 pm
Location: Meecheegan

Postby VEFF on Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:34 pm

elfdood wrote:
VEFF wrote:
Only one rule:
No (cyber) ballot stuffing please guys! ;)


Then we need to keep Jed Bush off the forums :)


...and all of Katherine Harris' friends.
Oops, you already covered that with Jeb Bush ;)
Just kidding folks, before anyone gets upset.
Burners only:
Pioneer DVR-115D
Pioneer DVR-111D
Plextor PX-716A TLA0304
Plextor PX-716A same TLA

LiteOn 52246S 52X CD-RW
LiteOn 52246S (another)
LiteOn 52327S 52X CD-RW
TDK 40X USB 2.0 CD-RW
TEAC CD-W540E 40X CD-RW
User avatar
VEFF
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 2025
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 9:36 pm

Re: New Direction

Postby MonteLDS on Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:17 am

LoneWolf wrote:
MonteLDS wrote:
steelly wrote:Vote for Kerry; this country needs a new direction in both economic and foriegn policy! :roll:

i don't think any president has a lot of power over the economy.

Monte, you nailed this one with a big hammer.

The President has VERY LITTLE POWER OVER THE ECONOMY. Problem is, everyone thinks he does. In a dictatorship, a leader might have power over their own country's local economy to some extent (note how it's beginning to get away from China in current events, though it used to be fully under government control) but the truth is, the economy is based on far too many complex variables to lay it at the foot of the president. A President may be able to weaken it a bit or strengthen it a bit, but he's one cog in a large set of gears that include consumer confidence, media spin, other countries, commodities markets, and I could go on and on. People gave Clinton/Gore far too much good credit over a (largely artificial as it was a dot com bubble) economy, and they're giving Bush a bad rap over a poor economy he only has so much control over. I do agree with one thing that Kerry has said that companies who ship American jobs overseas should not expect huge tax credits from us. Even so, if the benefits outweigh the lost tax credits, the jobs will still leave. That's what happens in a global economy, and we're foolish if we believe the economy is "just a US issue"; rather it's a global one.


I could not agree with this more. And i hope people in the mid-west understand this. Where they lose manfactoring jobs.
If a robot can do 5 people job faster and for less. They are going lose the job. The robot takes no sick days, and no vacation time. And can work overtime w/o time and half.
Also I think people in the mid-west are the farthest from the idea that we live in a global econmmy.
We are no longer an econmmy that depends on the USA, we depend on the world.
User avatar
MonteLDS
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:32 pm
Location: San Fran Bay Area CALIFORNIA

Re: New Direction

Postby socheat on Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:11 am

MonteLDS wrote:Also I think people in the mid-west are the farthest from the idea that we live in a global econmmy.
We are no longer an econmmy that depends on the USA, we depend on the world.


There goes those generalizing statements again. :roll: Anyway...

I will say a few things:

1.) In the 2nd debate, when asked how he would respond to a person who had their job outsourced overseas, he basically responded that he would give this person more education and training in order to gain the skills necessary to survive in this economy. But, you know what? I'm an engineer, with a bachelor's degree. My boss is engineer with a bachelor's and master's degree. And both our jobs are being sent overseas. What's Bush going to do, pay us to get a Ph.D in computer/software engineering? I doubt it. Did Kerry answer the question any better? Amazingly, he did worse! Kerry didn't even answer the question, and instead chose to attack a previous point. However, Kerry did admit he couldn't stop outsourcing, but would level the playing field by making it less of a benefit to outsource.

2.) I agree, Presidents do not have direct control over the economy, but the decisions he makes in other areas, which he does have control over, affect our economy. Namely, our foreign policy. I do contract work for aneco-travel agency that only travels internationally (think environmentally conscious travelers learning about other cultures), and they have been hit hard by this administration. In the last four years, they've lost more than half their staff. Not just because Americans are afraid of flying/traveling to other countries (that can partly be attributed to terrorists, not Bush's fault) but because other countries (not UK or Poland) are afraid of us. When clients return from their trips, most have short stories about how at times it was uncomfortable to be in another country because of the general (negative) sentiment towards US citizens.

3.) And it's not just engineering and travel jobs that are being lost. Recently, stories of outsourcing health care, of all things, to other countries have cropped up. Surgeries (non-cosmetic) that are expensive here can be done cheaper in India. That is an issue of health care.

Again, I'm not saying Kerry would do a better job. I'm simply illustrating that there are other decisions, which the President does have control over, that affect our economy greatly. Yes, I'm from the Mid-West, and I agree we are in a global economy. But the US is part of this global economy as well, which means foreign policy will affect our economy more, now than ever.
User avatar
socheat
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Postby VEFF on Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:00 am

I think the war in Iraq (both the decision to go and the inability to realize it was by far not the best thing they could have done to fight terrorism) is one of the biggest factors that could entice voters to choose Kerry, as a colleague stated he did.

This nation has spent over $130 billion on the war in Iraq, meanwhile the administration is cutting a ton of services domestically and can't even get good enough security at airports - there are huge holes in screening and overall airport security - and not screening most of the cargo at ports (points of of entry into the US).
All we need, although I hope it never happens, is for another big attack to show how vulnerable we really are at home, while lives and money are lost in Iraq.
Saddam is evil and did deserve to be apprehended and the world is better with him out of power; however, IMO the way the Bush administration went about it was definitely not the means to that end.
Iraq also could use the help it got in restructurin,; but why on earth the Bush administration had to alienate so many other countries and go it alone, as far as footing the lion's share of the expenses incurred in Iraq is
concerned, is another story though.
New York was most directly hit by the attacks of 9/11/01, both emotionally and economically.
Nevertheless, New York and surrounding states that were also hit hard by the attacks due to workers from downtown NY who live in the suburbs, had as much of a democratic vote as usual (percentagewise) and Kerry won all three tristate (NY. NJ and CT) races.
If people TRULY believed Bush was really much better on curbing terrorism than Kerry, the race in each of these states would have most likely been closer...

I agree, that neither candidate has as much control over the state of the economy as many like to believe.
Much of it is simply due to economic condtions worldwide, the cyclical nature of any economy, including the US economy.
I do think, however, that this control is not non existent.

I also was disappointed with Bush's serious lack of knowledge on a number of key issues (2nd or 3rd debate) after having been in office almost 4 years.

I don't know how effective Kerry would have been as President, but I quite
frankly would have liked to give him a chance, since I believe Bush could have done a lot better.

Just my two cents.

To the Bush supporters:
Congratulations on the election result.
I sincerely hope he tries to improve on his shortcomings in his second term,.
I would think most people want him to do better this time around, even his biggest fans.


PS: JamieW - This is all my opinion (i.e. not necessarily factual) and I do not purport to be an expert in politics. ;)
Burners only:
Pioneer DVR-115D
Pioneer DVR-111D
Plextor PX-716A TLA0304
Plextor PX-716A same TLA

LiteOn 52246S 52X CD-RW
LiteOn 52246S (another)
LiteOn 52327S 52X CD-RW
TDK 40X USB 2.0 CD-RW
TEAC CD-W540E 40X CD-RW
User avatar
VEFF
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 2025
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 9:36 pm

Postby Ian on Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:11 am

Well said VEFF. I agree whole heartedly.

With the whole Iraq reconstruction... I don't get why we don't just take their oil in exchange for the billions of $$$ we're investing in that country. Heck, we build a new building and the next week someone blows it up. Doesn't make sense to me. I wouldn't feel so bad if I could get gas for at a decent price.
"Blu-ray is just a bag of hurt." - Steve Jobs
User avatar
Ian
Grand Poobah
 
Posts: 14882
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 2:34 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby dodecahedron on Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:51 am

on the flip side:
i wonder how much money US companies are making off the restructuring and reconstruction of Iraq.
and it's not only big businesses profiting - it also means more jobs for americans at these companies.
(good for US economy)

personally, i agree with Bush about not letting the Russian, French, Germans and other @%^@% europeans participate. they were all to glad to let the US + UK fight the fight alone (and do the bleeding), but now want to share the pickings. i give these countries the middle-finger salute.

EDIT: just to makes this clear, this comment was not to include the UK, but rather western Europe except for the UK)
Last edited by dodecahedron on Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Postby VEFF on Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:30 am

dodecahedron wrote:on the flip side:
i wonder how much money US companies are making off the restructuring and reconstruction of Iraq.
and it's not only big businesses profiting - it also means more jobs for americans at these companies.
(good for US economy)

personally, i agree with Bush about not letting the Russian, French, Germans and other @%^@% europeans participate. they were all to glad to let the US + UK fight the fight alone (and do the bleeding), but now want to share the pickings. i give these countries the middle-finger salute.


My split sentence may not have been clear on reading your comment and reading a sentence in my previous post again:
I was referring to firming up more support for the war in the form of additional allies; I wasn't referring to the restructuring effort.

I wouldn't have noticed it if you hadn't posted; thanks.
Burners only:
Pioneer DVR-115D
Pioneer DVR-111D
Plextor PX-716A TLA0304
Plextor PX-716A same TLA

LiteOn 52246S 52X CD-RW
LiteOn 52246S (another)
LiteOn 52327S 52X CD-RW
TDK 40X USB 2.0 CD-RW
TEAC CD-W540E 40X CD-RW
User avatar
VEFF
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 2025
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 9:36 pm

Postby VEFF on Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:35 am

Ian wrote:Well said VEFF. I agree whole heartedly.

With the whole Iraq reconstruction... I don't get why we don't just take their oil in exchange for the billions of $$$ we're investing in that country. Heck, we build a new building and the next week someone blows it up. Doesn't make sense to me. I wouldn't feel so bad if I could get gas for at a decent price.


Thanks Ian.

I do hope that Bush does best and that his administration focuses more on domestic problems during his second term...
I also hope they are more proactive in terms of looking out for and trying to curb all aspect of potential terrorism activities BEFORE an attack occurs, since 9/11 caught everyone sleeping, not so much in the actual attack, which was hard to predict, but all the activity (preparations, surveillance, training etc.) that led up to it...
Burners only:
Pioneer DVR-115D
Pioneer DVR-111D
Plextor PX-716A TLA0304
Plextor PX-716A same TLA

LiteOn 52246S 52X CD-RW
LiteOn 52246S (another)
LiteOn 52327S 52X CD-RW
TDK 40X USB 2.0 CD-RW
TEAC CD-W540E 40X CD-RW
User avatar
VEFF
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 2025
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 9:36 pm

Postby jase on Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:02 pm

Could always give the money in the form of a loan that they'll still be paying off at 1/2 a billion $$$ a year 60 years later :wink:

It'll be interesting to see now what happens if Bush wants/needs to invade another mid-east country in future. I can tell you for now that he *won't* get Brit support as easily as last time, as Blair would never be able to get support from parliament again in the same way -- it would most likely be voted down.
jase
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby bill on Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:52 pm

jase wrote:It'll be interesting to see now what happens if Bush wants/needs to invade another mid-east country in future. I can tell you for now that he *won't* get Brit support as easily as last time, as Blair would never be able to get support from parliament again in the same way -- it would most likely be voted down.


Jase/anyone,

Are you thinking of Iran? They are building new long range missiles and it appears working towards nuclear weapons. How do you think Britain, France or Germany will respond when the mullahs actually start building nuclear weapons. Take military action, raise verbal hell or turn their backs while Israel or the US does the grunt work?
bill
CD-RW Supplier
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 11:30 pm
Location: USA

Postby aviationwiz on Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:22 pm

Image
User avatar
aviationwiz
Plextor Fan(atic)
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:55 am
Location: Home of the Red Tail

Postby Boba_Fett on Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:48 am

Damn, get over it moron. In fact, move to Canada, I'm sure most of them would love to share your ignorance...
eVGA NF4 SLI mobo
Opteron 165 Dual Core 1MB cache @ 2.5ghz
2GB Mushkin DDR PC4000
2x160GB & 1x250GB 7,200RPM SATA w/NCQ
eVGA Geforce 7900 GTO 512MB PCI-e
Pioneer 111D 16x DVD burner
Onboard Sound :(
User avatar
Boba_Fett
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 401
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 8:06 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere

Postby dodecahedron on Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:53 am

BigMonkey wrote:Are you thinking of Iran? They are building new long range missiles and it appears working towards nuclear weapons. How do you think Britain, France or Germany will respond when the mullahs actually start building nuclear weapons. Take military action, raise verbal hell or turn their backs while Israel or the US does the grunt work?

yeah, i know how they would react !
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Postby jase on Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:22 am

BigMonkey wrote:
jase wrote:It'll be interesting to see now what happens if Bush wants/needs to invade another mid-east country in future. I can tell you for now that he *won't* get Brit support as easily as last time, as Blair would never be able to get support from parliament again in the same way -- it would most likely be voted down.


Jase/anyone,

Are you thinking of Iran? They are building new long range missiles and it appears working towards nuclear weapons. How do you think Britain, France or Germany will respond when the mullahs actually start building nuclear weapons. Take military action, raise verbal hell or turn their backs while Israel or the US does the grunt work?


If it becomes as serious as that, Britain will be in there 100%, I have no doubt.

What I was saying was, that it will be a lot more difficult for Blair next time, due to the mistruths and deception he employed last time to get support from the UK Parliament -- which is made worse by the fact that Bush is still in office, because he is no longer trusted by huge numbers of people. There will need to be clear, demonstrable proof next time -- I am one of those who have always felt, and still do, that we were too hasty in invading Iraq and showed contempt for the feelings and views of other countries. Note that this is a criticism of the UK, what the US says and does to its allies I couldn't give two sh*ts about frankly unless they affect this country.

As for Germany and France, I couldn't say.
jase
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby jase on Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:25 am

dodecahedron wrote:
BigMonkey wrote:Are you thinking of Iran? They are building new long range missiles and it appears working towards nuclear weapons. How do you think Britain, France or Germany will respond when the mullahs actually start building nuclear weapons. Take military action, raise verbal hell or turn their backs while Israel or the US does the grunt work?

yeah, i know how they would react !


I find this remark offensive, given that the UK was the first country to stand beside the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it was the UK who persuaded the US to intervene in Kosovo (Clinton didn't want to be bothered), lest we forget.
jase
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby dodecahedron on Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:01 pm

my apologies, jase (and every brit reading this).
i was thinking of Europe (mainly Germany, France, Russia) when i made my reply to BigMonkey's post.
see also my previous post on this thread.

my apology notwithstanding, i as an Israeli have a score with the UK nonetheless.
i'm not talking 1918-1948, i'm talking 1956.
the UK does have a record of slinking off on occasion.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Postby jase on Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:21 pm

Suez?

I don't know much about the conflict, but I seem to recall the UK's withdrawal had something to do with threats from the Soviets. Like I say though, I don't know enough to comment.
jase
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby dodecahedron on Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:55 pm

jase wrote:Suez?

I don't know much about the conflict, but I seem to recall the UK's withdrawal had something to do with threats from the Soviets. Like I say though, I don't know enough to comment.

yep.
France and the UK chickened out.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Postby bill on Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:58 pm

jase wrote:
BigMonkey wrote:
jase wrote:It'll be interesting to see now what happens if Bush wants/needs to invade another mid-east country in future. I can tell you for now that he *won't* get Brit support as easily as last time, as Blair would never be able to get support from parliament again in the same way -- it would most likely be voted down.


Jase/anyone,

Are you thinking of Iran? They are building new long range missiles and it appears working towards nuclear weapons. How do you think Britain, France or Germany will respond when the mullahs actually start building nuclear weapons. Take military action, raise verbal hell or turn their backs while Israel or the US does the grunt work?


If it becomes as serious as that, Britain will be in there 100%, I have no doubt.

What I was saying was, that it will be a lot more difficult for Blair next time, due to the mistruths and deception he employed last time to get support from the UK Parliament -- which is made worse by the fact that Bush is still in office, because he is no longer trusted by huge numbers of people. There will need to be clear, demonstrable proof next time -- I am one of those who have always felt, and still do, that we were too hasty in invading Iraq and showed contempt for the feelings and views of other countries. Note that this is a criticism of the UK, what the US says and does to its allies I couldn't give two sh*ts about frankly unless they affect this country.

As for Germany and France, I couldn't say.



Jase,

Quote- "If it becomes as serious as that, Britain will be in there 100%, I have no doubt."

Thanks for responding, it's nice to know that at least one Brit feels like they can stand beside the US again. I had asked because when I watch BBC America or read BBC online there appears to be a strong dislike (or even hatred) for the USA. Because of that dislike I was afraid it would cloud your nation's judgment to work with us if Iran continues on the current course.

Regarding Iraq; I do believe, with hindsight, that the intelligence was sexed up to better argue the WMD reasons for going to war. At the same time, I also believe Blair, Bush and the other war allies believed the weapons did exist. So after a long period of being pi**ed off I decided to forgive them for their serious failures with the way they presented evidence.

Let's not forget for convenience that some other nations who are against the war also thought that there where WMD's still present in Iraq. Also, let us not forget that the darling of the anti war crowd, Hans Blix, failed to realize how well developed Iraq's WMD program was prior to the 1991 gulf war. Unfortunately, intelligence information is often educated guess work and can be influenced by other parties with their own agenda.

Your quote- "There will need to be clear, demonstrable proof next time -- I am one of those who have always felt, and still do, that we were too hasty in invading Iraq and showed contempt for the feelings and views of other countries." ..... Jase, it had been ten years since the first gulf war and the UN had imposed sanctions, it's hard to consider the second war as hasty. We must be careful to develop better intelligence information but we cannot afford to wait until there is a nuclear capacity as is now speculated with North Korea....

take care.



PS. Sorry Veff for getting a little off topic.
bill
CD-RW Supplier
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 11:30 pm
Location: USA

Postby dodecahedron on Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:48 pm

yeah, i guess the few hunderds or thousands of Kurds killed with Mustard gas is not "clear, demonstrable proof" enough.

Saddam did have WMD. he either hid them too well or smuggled them out of his country.

Blix - what a lamer.
i'm having a hard time restraining myself (for the sake of civil discussion) from porposing something more drastic done to him than kicking his butt all the way from UN, NYC to timbucktoo.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Postby TheWizard on Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:31 pm

This thread is a perfect example of why I choose not to get involved with politics. Too much stress, too much mud-slinging. It's ridiculous. I prefer to keep my headaches to a minimum. :)
No, I like women.
TheWizard
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 2074
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 6:56 pm

Postby bill on Sat Nov 06, 2004 8:04 pm

TheWizard wrote:This thread is a perfect example of why I choose not to get involved with politics. Too much stress, too much mud-slinging. It's ridiculous. I prefer to keep my headaches to a minimum. :)


Hi Wizard, :D

I understand what your saying. But, there is nothing wrong with a little bit of discussion, that's how I/we learn.

For instance, I suspect that if I lived in a nation that had previously been struck with scud missiles I may have a strong opinion on Iraq, know what I mean?...
bill
CD-RW Supplier
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 11:30 pm
Location: USA

Postby jase on Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:49 pm

Thanks for responding, it's nice to know that at least one Brit feels like they can stand beside the US again. I had asked because when I watch BBC America or read BBC online there appears to be a strong dislike (or even hatred) for the USA. Because of that dislike I was afraid it would cloud your nation's judgment to work with us if Iran continues on the current course.


The BBC is not anti-US, its programmes provide a forum for all sides and, lacking the understandable US patriotism you see in the American outlets (obviously, why would they be pro-US any more than anti?) can appear to be anti at times, but they aren't. They have a slight left-wing bias, but that is not the same thing.

There is a *lot* of anti-Blair sentiment in this country, which translates to a perceived anti-Bush bias in correspondents on the Brit media becasue Blair is so allied to Bush. I have never been pro the war in Iraq in the way it was implemented; I don't think the inspectors were allowed to do their job; I do think that the intelligence was skewed for political gain; and I also think that if we were going to go in the whole effort should have been far better funded and with a lot more soldiers on the ground. But I am absolutely convinced that we now need to stay in Iraq until the job is done 100% properly (and that is one of many areas where I am in disagreement with the "anti-war" crowd).

Most Brits are very pro-US at heart, believe me, even if not all of us trust Bush. But it doesn't stop us from having the right to question Blair if we think he's making a big mistake. Questioning a war does not make one anti-American.

In some ways it was a good thing Bush was re-elected; the last thing needed now is a policy of withdrawal, or a power vacuum whilst a new US president gets a handle on things. Also I think the two leaders should be there for the end of the proceedings; if it succeeds (as I hope it will), Bush/Blair will be the heroes and will have been totally vindicated. On the other hand if it ends in humiliation, I want to see the pair of them crucified politically for their mistake. It's only fair, either way.

Going back to the BBC, I think the reason why the argument over here has become so nasty is that Blair leads the Labour Party, the equivalent to the US Democrats (although more left-wing historically). Blair himself is a former member of CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a pacifist left-wing group dedicated to the removal, unilaterally, of the UK Nuclear deterrent), and the left feels politically disenfranchised by this rather right-wing leader of their party. When you get a political vacuum, the "wronged" party tend to become vocal and abusive. This is an indictment more of the poor state of our own politics here than anything going on in America. Auntie Beeb are only reflecting the mood of some of the country.

We're at a crossroads here. Do we side with the US, or go in with Europe. We've always been somewhere in the middle, but it's all coming to a head now. As for France and Germany, well the Germans have a tendency to be pacifists these days so allowances must be made for them, and I sympathise with their viewpoint. The French however make a living out of being difficult, and this should come as no surprise. They've always wanted to control Europe as a counter to the US (with the UK/Germany paying for it all of course ;)) and only this week Chirac has managed to offend Blair and Allawi who were over to try to rebuild bridges. They can be a funny bunch lol.

we cannot afford to wait until there is a nuclear capacity as is now speculated with North Korea....


Ah Jeez... North Korea, and Taiwanese independence are the two things more likely to lead to nuclear armageddon right now than just about anything else. One thing you have to remember is that dicking with a country as powerful as China is a stupid idea unless you have absolutely no other choice, and the chances are China will defend N Korea if they feel they have to. I really wouldn't like to be the one having to make decisions about Korea in particular right now.
Last edited by jase on Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jase
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby dodecahedron on Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:07 pm

jase wrote:The BBC is not anti-US, its programmes provide a forum for all sides and, lacking the understandable US patriotism you see in the American outlets (obviously, why would they be pro-US any more than anti?) can appear to be anti at times, but they aren't. They have a slight left-wing bias, but that is not the same thing.

sorry, Jase.
while i love the BBC for their documentaries and comedies (i think one might almost say i'm an Anglophile, at least where TV is concerned for sure. i'm a die hard Dr. Who fan, probably one of very few in Israel. This Life, Teachers are just 2 off the top of my head...great comedy) the last thing that can be said of the BBC is that their news department is objective.

as for the French, well (apart from restraining myself from more rude comments) i find their pomposity amusing and ludicrous.
they still think they are a World Power.
they are worse than the Germans, who have come to terms with what they did in WWII and tried to atone. the French have done neither.
they (the French) should be all over themselves trying to gratify themselves on the US and UK for saving them. twice. funny, they actually think they won both World Wars. LOL
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

PreviousNext

Return to The Beer Garden

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest

All Content is Copyright (c) 2001-2017 CDRLabs Inc.